We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Katalon Studio based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"It is a stable solution. When we compare BlazeMeter with other tools in the market, I can say that the solution's overall performance has also been very good in our company."
"The on-the-fly test data improved our testing productivity a lot. The new test data features changed how we test the applications because there are different things we can do. We can use mock data or real data. We can also build data based on different formats."
"It's a great platform because it's a SaaS solution, but it also builds the on-premises hosting solutions, so we have implemented a hybrid approach. BlazeMeter sets us up for our traditional hosting platforms and application stack as well as the modern cloud-based or SaaS-based application technologies."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"It has been good so far for API testing on Mac. It is not that hard to learn and use. There is so much support out there, so if anyone wants to start using it, there is enough help."
"The basic framework and project organization is very good."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward and easy enough to complete."
"The most important feature is the Jenkins integration; it is pretty straight forward and allows us to run nightly builds."
"The best thing about the solution is that there is a record and playback functionality."
"The automation is very fast and you don't need to be overly proficient in coding."
"User-friendly and a good solution."
"The product provides ease of automation for the cloud."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"Having more options for customization would be helpful."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"BlazeMeter needs more granular access control. Currently, BlazeMeter controls everything at a workspace level, so a user can view or modify anything inside that workspace depending on their role. It would be nice if there was a more granular control where you could say, "This person can only do A, B, and C," or, "This user only has access to functional testing. This user only has access to mock services." That feature set doesn't currently exist."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"Version controlling of the test cases and the information, the ability to compare the current version and the previous version within Runscope would be really nice. The history shows who made the changes, but it doesn't compare the changes."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"There is not much support offered for the free version, which is something that could be improved."
"There could potentially be more reporting within the solution. We need more issue reports, for example."
"It is difficult to identify elements on websites that use Angular or ReactJS because they don't have an option to view source code."
"My recently-updated Katalon studio version hangs a lot and is not a stable version."
"During parallel execution, some reports are randomly switched."
"The price of Katalon Studio is an area of concern where improvement is required."
"The tool's maintenance is very difficult since they do not follow call by value or call by reference. Due to this, any change happening is not reflected throughout all the test cases. There are some issues with data parameterization as well."
"Currently, I'm the only one who can use it because I have a Mac. It is giving a hard time to my team members who are on Linux. My team members are using Linux, and Katalon doesn't support Linux very well. It keeps on crashing. It crashes and shuts down almost every time they save their work, so they are not able to use it. It should have good support for Linux. We don't know what the problem is. If the Katalon team can pick up this issue, it will be very helpful."
BlazeMeter is ranked 5th in Test Automation Tools with 41 reviews while Katalon Studio is ranked 3rd in Test Automation Tools with 41 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Katalon Studio is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Katalon Studio writes "Useful multiple technology platform, scalable, but usability could improve". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas Katalon Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Postman, OpenText UFT One, Testim and Appium. See our BlazeMeter vs. Katalon Studio report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
